Best case scenario is you avoid a shitload of taxes. Worst case scenario is that you negotiate your tax bill down after getting caught and still wind up paying less in taxes than you would've if you adhered to the tax regs to begin with. Seems like a win-win to me.
Are you saying the fact that the two games were run sequentially is itself priming the outcome of the second game? Or are you referring specifically to the other experiment where students were asked to think about a past winning experience?
The question the experiment was designed to answer was "Are winner's of previous competitions more likely to cheat in subsequent competitions?". How can a controlled study be conducted to answer this question unless the subjects are subjected to winning (and losing)? And if this cheating inclination does occur outside the confines of this experiment what's different in the real world vs the experiment? The period of time that elapses between winning one competition and competing in another?
JoeyRox writes: A new study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reveals a paradoxical aspect of human behavior — people who win in competitive situations are more likely to cheat in the future. In one experiment, 86 students were split up into pairs and competed in a game where cheating was impossible. The students were then rearranged into new pairs to play a second game where cheating was possible. The result? Students who won the first game were much more likely to cheat at the second game. Additional experiments indicated that cheating was also more likely if students simply recalled a memory of winning in the past. The experiments further demonstrated that subsequent cheating was more likely in situations where the outcome of previous competitions was determined by merit rather than luck.